Are legacy admissions a thing at public universities? I don't recall whether there was a question about that on the application for the state university I graduated from.

From a legal/"should the schools be compelled to stop" standpoint, I support private colleges and universities being allowed to do whatever they want with legacies and with affirmative action / overall admissions decisions, but personally I'm not a fan of the practice of giving legacy students preference.

They did ask abour my parents' education on the applications, and I went to public university too.

But yes, I'm against legacies being granted anything more than a superficial preference, but I had no idea legacies were a quarter of enrollees rather than some tiny fraction. That's more of a threat to me than affirmative action ever could be... if I didn't have Ivy and Ivy equivalent family.

The (public) University of Michigan definitely had legacy points on the same admissions policy that went to SCOTUS.

Also points for being from Michigan and even more for being from an underrepresented county in Michigan.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

I mean, I'm for the race-based affirmative action, too, but it is another thing that goes against the supposed ideal of admitting people based on academic performance alone.

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.---If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

This part I'm so definitely for. Students shouldn't get beaten out for their own state universities by academically equivalent out-of-staters, even if it does get the school more tuition money.

What about out-of-country-ers? Not only does the state get more money, but it reduces the trade deficit while exporting your culture, creates connections with the children of foreign elites, and gives the rest of the world a massive incentive not to bomb your country? And it's not like, long term, there's any real maximum size to the university system. I'm probably one of the more jingoist and xenophobic bastards on here, but even I am wholeheartedly in favor of expanding student visas.

CorruptUser wrote:What about out-of-country-ers? Not only does the state get more money, but it reduces the trade deficit while exporting your culture, creates connections with the children of foreign elites, and gives the rest of the world a massive incentive not to bomb your country? And it's not like, long term, there's any real maximum size to the university system. I'm probably one of the more jingoist and xenophobic bastards on here, but even I am wholeheartedly in favor of expanding student visas.

Fairly certain most schools have an entirely separate admissions process and a number of spots for non-US residents vs. US residents.

I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.

Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

CorruptUser wrote:Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

There are other benefits of immigration. Like replacing slow inefficient old dying people with young people with a healthy fear of the law. That labor shortage is just gonna get worse.

CorruptUser wrote:Yeah and I think it should be expanded and heavily promoted to attract more students and make it easier for graduates to acquire permanent residency, in spite of me otherwise being slightly on the anti-immigrant side of the fence.

There are other benefits of immigration. Like replacing slow inefficient old dying people with young people with a healthy fear of the law. That labor shortage is just gonna get worse.

That argument always irked me. Western countries aren't having enough kids because people are deciding there isn't enough money and resources to have enough kids, and solving the problem with immigration squeezes people even further and... didn't we have this argument? I feel like I had this argument.

I don't understand. Is your concern that the immigrants will consume more than before they immigrated, thus reducing total world resources?

It seems to me that all of the problems with unrestricted immigration are ultimately caused by immigration laws increasing inequality, and the people who benefit from inequality don't want to fix problems that they benefit from.

When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small. To the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high school—who are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills.

There is little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers. As with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants. In addition, recent research finds that immigration reduces the number of hours worked by native teens (but not their employment levels).

Some evidence on inflow of skilled immigrants suggests that there may be positive wage effects for some subgroups of native-born workers, and other benefits to the economy more broadly.

Immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.

In terms of fiscal impacts, first-generation immigrants are more costly to governments, mainly at the state and local levels, than are the native-born, in large part due to the costs of educating their children. However, as adults, the children of immigrants (the second generation) are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population, contributing more in taxes than either their parents or the rest of the native-born population.

Over the long term, the impacts of immigrants on government budgets are generally positive at the federal level but remain negative at the state and local level — but these generalizations are subject to a number of important assumptions. Immigration’s fiscal effects vary tremendously across states.

Spoilered since we already discussed all the benefits. The key points you care about is the negative effects new immigrants have. They negatively affect prior immigrants and native born highschool dropouts(or anyone else who shares qualities similar to low skilled immigrants). I mostly see the negatives at the state and local level (which causes pain as they either cut services are raise taxes) to natives and the reduced hours of native workers. This negative effect is mirrored around age 60, as the natives start demanding more than they pay in taxes compared to immigrants.

There's definitely pain being felt by natives here. Mostly in the local/state levels of government affecting how services are distributed and paid for.

Technically 0%, since undocumented, not illegal. Hate the newspeak. 40% are on overstayed visas, yes, but there's quite a bit of difference between someone whose visa wasn't renewed and someone who was never even screened in the first place.